More Denton: Reply to Tony (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, July 29, 2015, 08:19 (3405 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: What does &#147;allowed for&#148; mean? &#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> TONY: This is where my computer programming background comes in. In programming, I can say:&#13;&#10;> A < X > B (The variable X will always be between the values A and B) etc.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;>DHW: I&apos;m sorry, but computer language doesn&apos;t help me! In plain English, I have pointed out that once your God had created the prototype species, something had to organize (not allow for) adaptation, diversification (protocat branching out into tabby and lion), cooperation with other organisms, design of complex habitats and lifestyles. Three questions for you:&#13;&#10;> -This thing (X) may vary between this value (A) and that value (B), based on a given condition. For example, a cat&apos;s muscle may vary within a given range based on the proportion of the felines body sized compared to the base size. They will need to consume an amount of food (X) relative to their body size that does not exceed the boundaries of a range (A) or (B). Their hair will be of a given length between two values based on internal temperature. Etc. etc. etc.-Some of this is actually formally stated in Klieber&apos;s law:-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleiber%27s_law-&#13;&#10;>DHW:&#13;&#10;> 1. Do you accept David&apos;s hypotheses that God either preprogrammed all the products of these activities 3.8 billion years ago, or guided each one individually? &#13;&#10;> 2. Do you believe in common descent from each &#147;prototype&#148; species? &#13;&#10;> 3. Since classifications are not a &#147;sound basis for rational judgement&#148;, and we may not know the &#147;prototype&#148;, how can we know that what we now consider to be separate species have not branched off earlier from common ancestors?-1: I believe that there was, and had to be, pre-programming in place prior to any given creature existing. Failure to have said pre-programming would lead to immediate death, even if it was somehow miraculously conceived, or spontaneously created.-2. This question is ambiguous. Please clarify. If you have a prototype species you don&apos;t actually need common decent because no speciation actually occurs. What you have are variations within a single species that tend to breed true. Given the predisposition towards segregation by similarity, the natural course of events would lead to breeds that are fairly homogeneous. -3. By one of the earliest definitions of species which puts the genetic inability (as opposed to geographic or size barrier) to interbreed as the defining, separating factor. That would be a clear indication of species. --> &#13;&#10;> TONY: ...the morphological changes need to change between herbivore and carnivore are too great, and no such change has ever been observed. &#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> The argument that no changes have been observed applies to all hypotheses. The changes are apparently not too great for protocat to turn itself into tabby or lion. How do you know God would not/could not design a mechanism enabling existing organisms also to adapt their bodies to munch meat instead of marigolds (especially if the latter are in short supply)? -If he wanted to, I am certain he could, I am suggesting that he didn&apos;t.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.